LH.com Lost !

WOW... I guess I won't be buying an LL.com afterall

These panelists have WAY too much power imho... 2 letter domains + generics should be off limits. Makes no sense that anyone should be "entitled" to an LL.com that could stand for God knows how many other things...

If these things keep going up in value, I really wonder how long it'll be before we have a bunch of companies attempting to reverse hijack these merely because it's cheaper than legitimately acquiring them... With the cost of filing a complaint, one might as well file a complaint first and inquire about purchasing the domain afterwards if unsuccessful.

A very sad day for domainers... :td:

wipo :td:

agreed, he turned down offers for 1 million in past
make no mistake he doesn't need money, not the point, but makes clearer that it's not bad faith, just that he's a rich guy and likes collecting domains. his call imo

same way if you own 20 van goghs and keep them in your shed, it's your call, you dont expect the Dutch government to take you to court for abusing their heritage, yet that would be more serious

maybe forgetting parking altogether is best, i am dveeloping more and more as every day goes on

More Here

It's ridiculous... If someone wants to collect paintings, property, shares of stocks, currency, etc they're free to do it, but if you don't put a $1M domain to good use, you lose it? Seriously wtf?

arnie said:

agreed, he turned down offers for 1 million in past
make no mistake he doesn't need money, not the point, but makes clearer that it's not bad faith, just that he's a rich guy and likes collecting domains. his call imo

same way if you own 20 van goghs and keep them in your shed, it's your call, you dont expect the Dutch government to take you to court for abusing their heritage, yet that would be more serious

maybe forgetting parking altogether is best, i am dveeloping more and more as every day goes on

More Here

Click to expand...

Agreed Reece

Also, he would have paid a lot of money to acquire, they're using this against him, they say one thing against him is he wasn't the original registrant?!! wtf

seriously we should mass complain about these freaks who made the decision, friggin shylocks and fraudsters.

whats more German firms are notorious for underhand tactics

arnie said:

maybe forgetting parking altogether is best, i am dveeloping more and more as every day goes on

Click to expand...

:bingo:

companies know wipo is the cheapest way to have a name can cost thousands or even millions and some have been successful there

i am worried because this shows maybe one day (and i think it isnt so far) who have the money will always win

That's what I fear too Bricio. It's a sad day when one has to worry that what they own can be taken away from them at anytime for some made-up-BS reason.

What's next? Is someone gonna wipo CNET for not putting com.com to good use?

bricio said:

:bingo:

companies know wipo is the cheapest way to have a name can cost thousands or even millions and some have been successful there

i am worried because this shows maybe one day (and i think it isnt so far) who have the money will always win

Click to expand...

That's precisely what worries me when it comes to very short domains, especially 2 or 3 letter ones.

I remember that we discussed recently on NP the purchase of NTV.tv on Sedo. I pointed out that it might be risky as there are many huge tv channels which are called NTV (in Russia, in the US, in Germany, in Japan, in India, etc).

Almost all very short domains are abbreviations of company names, many of which are trademarked.

The fact that these very short domains are abbreviations of company names is precisely what gives them a very high value, especially when it's a .com.

I would definitely advise anybody who owns a LL.com or LLL.com to develop it and not park it. Parking those very valuable names is the best way to lose them in a trademark dispute, especially as I'm pretty sure that these disputes on very short domains will be seen more and more often in the future.

I could see a lawsuit looming over this.

Kath said:

I could see a lawsuit looming over this.

Click to expand...

me too, and he actually has the dosh to take on Lufthansa too.
love to see them get their arse kicked, also for the panellists to get a boot up the arse as well

This is an absoloute disgrace imo.

arnie said:

me too, and he actually has the dosh to take on Lufthansa too. love to see them get their arse kicked, also for the panellists to get a boot up the arse as well

Click to expand...

Well, British Airways own ba.com, American Airlines own aa.com, so Lufthansa were jealous and wanted their LL.com too.

Well it's quite obvious that this should lead to a lawsuit. There's just too much at stake. It should be quite interesting to follow...

As would I

Someone has to teach these POS they can't just treat us like dirt, screw us out of the domains we legitimately own, and label us cybersquatters...

arnie said:

me too, and he actually has the dosh to take on Lufthansa too.
love to see them get their arse kicked, also for the panellists to get a boot up the arse as well

Click to expand...

What's interesting is that, if you check on WIPO, there are actually quite a few companies who have trademarked "LH" worldwide, including the Swiss luxury jeweler Leon Hatot (part of the huge Swatch Group).

How can Lufthansa call this cybersquatting when other companies have trademarked this very same abbreviation too ?

Reece said:

Someone has to teach these POS they can't just treat us like dirt, screw us out of the domains we legitimately own, and label us cybersquatters...

Click to expand...

they treat us like dirt because they see us like that

people out there dont know domainers, they know big companies and when they do wrong things they are in the news and of course this gives us all a bad reputationse those who lead this industry should be have the

those who are the most influent here should conduct their business fairly but sometimes it doesnt happen, so those out there know us cybersquatters

michaeldotcom said:

What's interesting is that, if you check on WIPO, there are actually quite a few companies who have trademarked "LH" worldwide, including the Swiss luxury jeweler Leon Hatot (part of the huge Swatch Group).

How can Lufthansa call this cybersquatting when other companies have trademarked this very same abbreviation too ?

Click to expand...

The panel found that FMA did not have any legitimate rights in the mark. If Leon Hatot owned it, the complaint would not have succeeded.

The lawsuit is already pending. This will be a very interesting case to follow.

Fortunately Elequa has the funds to fight this in Federal court and hopefully will win there. He had already brought suit before the UDRP decision, perhaps an indication that he expected the ruling. He may have smelled a rat.

The question is what can be done about an out-of-control WIPO agency? It is the same issue as the Snowe bill - the potential of a daisy chain of companies each hijacking a domain from the previous owner.

There need not be foul play in this decision, ignorance and dislike of domainers would suffice. Many view all domaining as "cybersquating" and parked pages as the internet equivalent of litter.

The best defense may be to not hold valuable domains unless you have a trademark and are using them.

accentnepal said:

The best defense may be to not hold valuable domains unless you have a trademark and are using them.

Click to expand...

Then they would have got what they wanted and would have won.

Domaining is perfectly legal and it's about time we were stopped being treated like social lepors.

accentnepal said:

The best defense may be to not hold valuable domains unless you have a trademark and are using them.

Click to expand...

Definitely... don't park them, and never offer to sell them.

This is a load of crap. It is unfortunate the domain was lost, however I think the court battle is exactly what is needed to end this crap once and for all.

I think in these kind of cases, even if the ruling goes against the domain owner, the winner should still be forced to pay fair market value like with eminent domain.

This is just a wholesale theft of a $1M+ domain.

-RJ- said:

The panel found that FMA did not have any legitimate rights in the mark. If Leon Hatot owned it, the complaint would not have succeeded.

Click to expand...

Very true indeed.

I guess the best thing to do for LL.com (or possibly even LLL.com) owners is to trademark these domains, don't you think so ?

It's too expensive and useless to trademark every single domain, but I think it's something to consider seriously for very valuable domains, especially two or three letter ones which are almost always abbreviations of company names (which means a very high risk of trademark dispute).

I hate to sound paranoid, but with how fast generics and short domains are rising in value, how much longer can we expect it to be before we start seeing corporations attempting to bribe panelists?

Reece said:

I hate to sound paranoid, but with how fast generics and short domains are rising in value, how much longer can we expect it to be before we start seeing corporations attempting to bribe panelists?

Click to expand...

i'm sure most will say it has happened before
think how connected politicians and heads of industry are?
decisions made in houses of parliament in UK all the time where Lords are directors in companies and all know each other etc
sure same goes on here

Wow! this is simply disgraceful

This is the equivalent of someone stealing $1,000,000 off of someone.

One of the worst decisions WIPO has ever made.